Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

Something truly extraordinary happened in Britain this week. In an interview with the New Statesman, the chairman of the Conservative party, which is currently the party of government in Britain (although it is in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats) claimed that "Asian" vote fraud had cheated her party out of a majority at the last election.

Of course, in this context, as in so many others where criminality or wrong-doing is involved, "Asian" is a racist euphemism that the British media and political elite like to use for "Muslim". (Incidentally, isn't it remarkable that Muslims now have such a protected status that even organisations like the BBC are willing to stoop to outright racism, needlessly insulting innocent, law-abiding Sikhs, Hindus and Chinese, etc. just to safeguard their precious Muslims.)

The allegations were all the more extraordinary for the fact that the person making them, Baroness Warsi, is herself an "Asian" Muslim. Even more remarkable than the allegations, however, was the reaction to them; or rather the lack thereof.

Most news organisations didn't bother reporting the story. The Guardian and the BBC did report it, as did the Mail; as far as I could see no other major newspaper reported the story. The Times did not; the Independent did not; neither did the Telegraph, although it was mentioned by Benedict Brogan in one of his blog posts. Brogan predicted that the story was going to be "huge"; but he clearly underestimated the grip of political correctness on the British media.

Bizarrely, as well as admitting that Muslims had successfully subverted the electoral system in Britain, Warsi complained that the British media were unreasonably prejudiced against them. Islamophobia was rife in the British press, she claimed, in a way that was reminiscent of the prejudice against Jews early in the 20th century. How, then, does she account for the failure of the British media to report her extraordinary claim about Muslim vote fraud costing the Conservatives the election? Surely, if the British press had been so madly Islamophobic, it would have leapt on this story like rabid dog? But no. Silence reigned.

So there you have it: the outcome of a British general election is determined by Muslim vote fraud; a leading figure in the largest political party says this openly; and the media doesn't even bother reporting the fact that the allegation has been made, never mind looking into whether it might be true.

Territoriality is intrinsic to Islam. Muslims divide the world into two categories: Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, defined as those places where Islam has achieved ascendancy and now dominates life) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War, defined as the places where infidels are in the ascendant, infidels who must be warred upon until they are killed or subjugated and forced to acknowledge the supremacy of Islam).

Many expressions commonly used by Muslims reflect this sense of territorial proprietorship. For example: "Muslim soil", "Muslim lands", "the Muslim world", "Muslim countries".

Many Westerners, including those who are strongly antipathetic to Islam, often unthinkingly lend credence to this Muslim concept of territorial proprietorship by casually adopting some of these expressions into their own discourse.

It is worth pointing out therefore:

There is no such thing as Muslim soil. Soil cannot be affiliated with a particular superstition.

There are no such things as Muslim lands. Land cannot be affiliated with a particular superstition.

There is no such thing as the Muslim world. The world, or part of it, is not the exclusive preserve of a particular superstition.

There are no such things as Muslim countries. Countries cannot affiliate themselves with particular superstitions. No matter how dominant a particular superstition appears to be in one country, there will be people whose allegiance is with other superstitions or with none at all among its population. They may not declare their allegiance, or lack of allegiance, openly because of fear of the consequences; but their silent dissent should be acknowledged.

If you are tempted to use any of these phrases in your own speech or writing, consider using alternatives instead.

Rather than talk about "the Muslim world", use the term "Umma" - the community of Muslim believers.

Rather than talk about "Muslim countries", use the term "Muslim-majority countries" instead.

I've been watching a lot of French films on DVD recently and can't help but be struck by the extent to which the Muslim penetration of France is reflected in the films released within the last few years.

I provide a list of the films I've watched below, with brief descriptions of their salient features.

The Prophet

The main character is a Muslim Arab who is not particularly religious. When sent to prison, he is coerced into committing a murder by the powerful group of Sicilian gangsters who control prison life. After completing the task, the Sicilians accept him into their group where he does menial work for them. In the meantime, he falls in with other more devout Muslims and, with them, he builds up his own independent criminal operation on the side. Gradually, the balance of power shifts. By the end of the film the grip of the Sicilians has been broken; their leader is humiliated; the main character leaves the Sicilians and joins his fellow Muslims, who are now in the ascendant.

Paris Lockdown

This is a very violent gangster film. A group of French gangsters dominates organised crime in the neighbourhood. A less powerful group of Muslim gangsters is also active. One of the Muslims fails to pay a debt to one of the French gangsters. As a result, he is beaten and humiliated. The nearest the film has to a hero is an independent French operator who is hired to do rough stuff by the various groups of gangsters. He is white but is always seen with black women.

As the film proceeds, the power of the French gangsters ebbs away and that of the Muslims grows. A confrontation is in the offing. The independent contractor realises that the French gangsters are going to be wiped out by the Muslims; he decides to side with them, accepting a contract to kill the French gangster leader. He does so, fulfilling the contract, but later feels threatened by the Muslims himself. The Muslims come looking to kill him, but the final scene shows him having fled to somewhere that looks like North Africa, surrounded by brown people in a primitive-looking town.

Go Fast

The main character is a Muslim policeman. He is good friends with a white French policeman who is killed shortly after the film begins. The Muslim maintains friendly relations with his dead friend's family. The plot involves the Muslim infiltrating a drug-smuggling group. He encounters the criminals who killed his friend and ultimately kills or arrests them. The close relationship with the now husbandless white family is maintained and there is a hint of the Muslim possibly taking the place of the dead white man, acting as a surrogate father, although in the final scene the Muslim goes off with a supposedly American woman.

Army of Crime

A bunch of immigrants to France start up their own resistance cell to fight against the Nazi Second World War occupation of France. In this case the immigrants are mostly brown-skinned Armenian Christians or Jews. They carry out attacks for a while but in the end all are killed or captured then executed. Racist Vichy propaganda against them is broadcast. In the end their names are read out, "Mort pour la France."

Days of Glory

A group of North African Muslims are recruited to fight for France in the Second World War. They are led by a seemingly white officer, but it later emerges that he has a shameful secret: he had an Arab mother and keeps a photograph of her in his shirt. The Muslims do some fighting and help liberate a French town. The French inhabitants are friendly, grateful and welcoming. A white Frenchwoman has sex with one of the Muslims and, after parting, they write letters to one another, which, however, are never received because wartime chaos and censorship intervenes.

Lots of Muslim music plays throughout the film, along with invocations of Muslim prayers and references to Allah. Much of the dialogue is in Arabic.

Later the Muslims proceed into Alsace to hold a bridge against the Germans there. All of the white officers are either killed or seriously injured by mines and the Muslims have to take command. They fight against the Germans and most are killed. The ones who survive, however, are ultimately not given the respect their achievements deserve, implicitly because of French racism.

The Nest

An Albanian mafia leader (Muslim) who is responsible for trafficking white female slaves for prostitution purposes is being transported from one location to another. The members of his gang attempt to free him while a small team of international police tries to fend them off. The main character, the leader of the police troop, is played by Nadia Fares, an Arab woman born in Morocco. She is not portrayed as a Muslim in the film and I'm not sure whether she is a Muslim in real life.

Welcome

I couldn't actually bring myself to watch this one but apparently it tells the story of a kindly French lifeguard who helps a Kurdish immigrant swim across the Channel to enter Britain illegally.

Note this was just a random selection of recent French films that had high enough ratings to seem watchable. I wasn't consciously seeking out films that had islamification or immigration as their themes.

But what is the takeaway from all of this? The theme of brown, Arab Muslims taking over and displacing white, French people is pervasive in recent French cinema. What's particularly striking is that this is never portrayed in a negative light. Often the Muslims are portrayed positively, as in Go West, where the Muslim usurps the father figure role of the dead white cop; or the formerly dominant whites are portrayed as brutal and callous, as in Paris Lockdown and the Prophet, in a way that appears to justify their later displacement by the Muslims.

Cinema creates role models, portraying characters in a heroic light to which the watchers are meant to aspire. In many of these films, the lead characters are either explicitly Muslim or the actors and actresses portraying them are wholly or partly Arab. The Arab immigrant is held up as the role model. This is what young French people are supposed to aspire to. Immigration is portrayed in a positive light and anyone opposed to it is shown as evil and vicious.

The ultimate effect is of almost Soviet-style propaganda designed to depict third world immigration, and the process of islamification, in a positive light. White women are shown maintaining joyful relations with the Muslims/Arabs. Anyone expressing disdain for them is portrayed in a negative light.

Even the story of French resistance to the Nazis, probably the cornerstone mythology of post-war French politics, has been co-opted by the Muslims/immigrants. Telling a simple tale about heroic French men and women opposing foreign invasion is not good enough any more. It seems there must now always be an angle that lets the Muslims/immigrants/brown people get in on the picture.

Yes, it is propaganda but it is not entirely spontaneous, self-generated propaganda by indigenous French people rejoicing at their new state of dhimmitude. French cinema is heavily subsidised by the state. Watch the credits for these films and you will see many mentions of government agencies and bodies who are thanked for providing their support. In fact, the film Welcome won the Lux award from the European parliament, a prize awarded annually "for the film which best illustrates 'the European integration process, topical European issues or cultural diversity in the Union'." The prize money is to be used to translate the film into all languages of the European Union.

What we are seeing in these films is nothing less than state propaganda designed to get Europeans to consent to their own genocide. I, for one, do not consent.

For decades the American government has cultivated relationships with potentially subversive elements in foreign countries. Often, after an election, or a coup, their proteges come to power and re-orient the government's policy to favour American interests. One of many examples is Saakashvili in Georgia, a petty Putinesque despot and borderline lunatic.

Outrageously, as this article in the New York Times reports, the US government is now cultivating relationships with Europe's disaffected Muslims.

The United States Embassy in Paris has formed a network of partnerships with local governments, advocacy groups, entrepreneurs, students and cultural leaders in the troubled immigrant enclaves outside France’s major cities.

We have already seen Obama using American taxpayers' money to promote sharia law in Kenya (the money was used to promote a new constitution that contained elements of sharia law). Now he is throwing more money at Muslims in Europe. It would be nice if the blame for this insane initiative could be pinned entirely on Obama. Unfortunately, it can't. The "outreach" programme got underway in the Bush years, although it "has grown in scale and visibility since the election of Barack Obama."

With an annual public affairs budget of about $3 million, the Paris embassy has sponsored urban renewal projects, music festivals and conferences. Since Mr. Obama’s election, the Americans have helped organize seminars for minority politicians, coaching them in electoral strategy, fund-raising and communications.

The International Visitor Leadership Program, which sends 20 to 30 promising French entrepreneurs and politicians to America for several weeks each year, now includes more minority participants, and Muslims in particular.

So yet again Muslims are being rewarded for their aggression by having money and attention thrown at them. This time it's even worse, however, as the reward comes from abroad.

These Muslims are a subversive element within European society and European governments should crack down hard on any ties between them and foreign governments, whether those governments are American or Saudi.

The Pope has recently visited Britain. During the visit, the British media gave prominent coverage to the protests against the Pope led by people like Peter Tatchell (a gay rights activist), Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, et al.

Strangely ignored by the mainstream media, however, was the protest led by the group Muslims Against Crusades, helmed by Anjem Choudary. Holding up placards like "Shariah for Rome", "Jesus Hates the Pope" and "Jesus Loves Islam", they chanted "Benedict watch your back, Islam is coming back!".

The Sweden Democrats, the supposed "far right" party which warns about the dangers of immigration, particularly of the Muslim variety, has thrown a spanner in the works of the Swedish political establishment.

Initial indications were that the Sweden Democrats have achieved at least 5% of the vote, although there are reports, suspicious reports, that this total is rising to above 8% after recounts. This showing should ensure it has at least 20 seats in the new parliament. Previously, the Sweden Democrats had no representation whatsoever as the Swedish electoral rules stipulate that a party must achieve at least 4% of the vote before it gains any seats. Clearly this rule was designed to stifle "fringe" points of view, such as the one that mass Muslim immigration may not be a good thing. But that view's not quite so "fringe" any more, is it?

The party's success comes despite the most extraordinary campaign of discrimination against it. Most newspapers refused to run the party's ads. A rather innocuous television commercial (shown above) was banned. The party's website was hacked, many of its campaigning events had to be called off because of threats, or the reality, of violence from the left and its Muslim allies.

The Swedish left, which dominated politics in the country throughout the post-war era, has lost a second election in a row for the first time ever and has seen its share of the vote fall further. This is a trend I expect to see repeated throughout Europe. The European left has contracted a fateful and traitorous alliance with Islam and will pay an increasing price for it at the ballot box, at least among the indigenous Europeans.

It seems that the small countries in Europe are reacting more strongly to the Muslim invasion than the larger countries. This is most likely because in small countries, all politics is much more highly localised. In large countries like the UK, there are large tracts of the country that have barely been affected by the immigration jihad. Life continues there as normal, while perhaps only a small proportion of the country finds itself on the frontlines of the Muslim invasion.

Denmark, so far, has been the most successful model for how Europe should react to the Muslim invasion. The Danish People's Party has eschewed racism but mounted a vigorous defence of European values by opposing further third-world immigration. It has achieved a sizeable share of the vote such that it is able to make demands of the other parties in return for offering its support. Denmark now has some of the most stringent immigration laws in Europe and is already implementing the "voluntary repatriation" policy that outfits like the BNP have campaigned for in vain.

The Netherlands, of course, has Geert Wilders. And Belgium is disintegrating largely as a result of differences of opinion between north and south about how to respond to the Muslim invasion. Eventually these tendencies will manifest themselves within the larger polities too. Let's hope they do so soon.

All over Europe there is talk of paring back public spending to stave off concern in the financial markets about the high levels of sovereign debt. Some of the cuts proposed are extraordinary in scope. For example, in the UK, there is talk of trimming the military budget in a way not seen in the post-WWII era. Radical reforms of the welfare state are being bruited about. The story is similar elsewhere.

What's missing, of course, is any big picture analysis of why this has come about. Of course, to some degree, it is a reaction to the recent recession. But there have been plenty of recessions in the post-WWII era and the recent one has not been significantly worse than some of the others. So why has it produced such calamitous effects?

The answer is simple: the Muslim colonisation of Europe is producing enormous pressure on budgets throughout Europe. No one talks about this explicitly. They refer to the pressure on budgets as if it was a bad thing that just mysteriously happened; something over which we have no control, like the rain falling. But that simply isn't true. European budgets are being drained by a parasitic Muslim presence that only exists as a result of government policy.

For example, in Denmark Muslims constitute only 5% of the population, yet consume 40% of the welfare budget.

One study, reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German), found that migrants to Germany (who are overwhelmingly Turkish) had taken 1 trillion euros more out of the social security system in benefits than they had put in through tax payments!! 1 trillion Euros! That is about £850 billion or $1.3 trillion US dollars.

In Britain we know that the top 5 immigrant groups, ranked by benefits dependency are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Turks, Somalis and Persians: all Muslims. We know that more than 50% of the Muslim population resident in Britain is economically inactive. Of course, it is not only through benefits dependency that the Muslims drain European treasuries. Thanks to their high birth-rates and their habit of inbreeding (which produces congenital defects) they are disproportionate users of the government-provided health services. They also commit crime at disproportionately high levels.

Put it all together and what do you have? The Muslims are acting like a veritable swarm of locusts devouring the European economy. And some of them are doing this consciously. As part of a Sunday Times investigation, an undercover reporter infiltrated a Muslim extremist group in Britain called the "Saviour Sect":

The Saviour Sect was established 10 months ago when its predecessor group Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded after coming under close scrutiny by the authorities. Its members meet in secret in halls, followers’ homes and parks. They are so opposed to the British state that they see it as their duty to make no economic contribution to the nation. One member warned our undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system.

Instead, the young follower, Nasser, who receives £44 job seekers’ allowance a week, said it was permissible to “live off benefits”, just as the prophet Mohammed had lived off the state while attacking it at the same time. Even paying car insurance was seen as supporting the system. “All the (Saviour Sect) brothers drive without insurance,” he said.

Given the demographic jihad that the Muslims are waging in Europe, as expressed in high birth rates and high rates of immigration, Europeans will increasingly find themselves unable to provide the range of government services to which they have become accustomed. Ludicrously, Europe's political elites hail immigration as the solution to the continent's economic problems, rather than tell the truth, which is that it is the source of them. The disease is being hailed as the cure!

In some of the discussions kicked up by the Sarrazin affair in Germany, I occasionally heard mention of the research of criminologist Christian Pfeiffer. So I decided to follow up this reference and find out exactly what it was he had discovered.

It turns out that Pfeiffer conducted an elaborate study of youth crime, interviewing 45,000 young people. His conclusion was striking: the more devoutly religious young Muslims in Germany were, the more crimes (like robbery and violence) they committed. This was in sharp contrast to young people of other faiths like Christianity. The more devout young Christians were, the fewer crimes they committed. These correlations remained valid even after taking every other variable, like socio-economic status, parents' education level, etc. into account.

So Islam actually inspires people to commit crimes and acts of violence? Who'd have thunk it?

Also interesting is the fact that, worried about political correctness, Pfeiffer kept his study secret for six months after finishing it and consulted with a German federal government ministry about how he could release the results in a low-key way.

Read the mainstream press and you'll come across their standard interpretation of what's happening to Belgium: the Dutch-speaking north and the French-speaking south are falling out with one another. It's just old nationalist instincts reasserting themselves.

You need to peer beneath the headlines to find the real story, as this article (in German) on Politically Incorrect does. It's not about Flemish vs. Wallonians. It's about Muslims vs. All. Brussels is a predominantly French-speaking enclave within the Dutch-speaking North. But, increasingly, it's not French that can be heard in the Brussels streets, but Arabic.

Brussels could well be considered the Muslim capital of Europe. It is a cesspit of corruption and criminality and not all of it stems from the EU.

The Dutch north could tolerate the French south, even if it was less economically successful and therefore a net recipient of government subsidies. It could tolerate a French city in its midst. But it cannot accept it when that French city morphs into a Muslim city and sucks in ever greater amounts of money from the rest of Belgium to pay for Muslim corruption.

The main left-wing party in Belgium dominates politics in the French south of the country. Of course, as elsewhere in Europe, the left has made its bed with the Muslims and supports more Muslim immigration and more Islam-friendly policies. The Dutch north, however, wants the circus to stop. This is the real root of the crisis in Belgian politics, one that may well tear the country apart.

As the Muslim populations grow in virtually every country in western Europe, I expect to see similar problems cropping up elsewhere. Old separatist tendencies will re-assert themselves, and existing ones will be invigorated, as the still-European parts of some countries look on with horror as whole cities and regions are transformed into Muslim ghettos.

Secessionist demands will be coming both from the Muslims who want to set up mini-Sharia republics and the non-Muslims who want to get away from them. Of course, at times, violence will erupt. Civil war is in our future. That is what the utopian idealism of the 60s has sown. There has been no greater folly in the history of the world.

According to a poll commissioned by Germany's BILD newspaper, 18% of Germans would vote for a party led by Thilo Sarrazin.

Meanwhile, Germany's pitiful chancellor Merkel is doing her best to cope with a popular clamour in support of Sarrazin. In an interview, Merkel, a trained scientist, has even been reduced to refusing to say whether she believes intelligence is a genetically inheritable characteristic! This must be the ultimate low point in the history of political correctness when, in their mad quest for equality, the utopians are reduced to denying the basic facts of biology.

The publication of Thilo Sarrazin's book "Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab" may turn out to be one of the most important events in the history of the modern Muslim invasion of Europe. Geert Wilders, of course, is a heroic figure who has set a template that the rest of Europe should and must follow. But, ultimately, the Netherlands is a small country that is most likely incapable of decisively affecting the rest of the continent. Germany is Europe's largest country and what happens there will have repercussions throughout the European Union. It is also, of course, the author of the Nazi episode in history, which for decades has been used to beat recalcitrant Europeans into silent submission to the ongoing destruction of their culture and way of life. The weight of history is heavier there than anywhere else; so, if the Germans can get over it, the rest of us can too.

Sarrazin has provoked an almost unbelievable media storm. Visit the German news websites and you'll see special sections devoted entirely to the controversy. Sarrazin's book is now on sale but very hard to get. It sold 70,000 copies on the first day and Amazon Germany is currently quoting 1-2 week availability for anyone who orders it now. Opinion polls and comments on websites show virtually the entire German people behind Sarrazin; and virtually the entire political and media establishment against him. This is the kind of moment that generates a political revolution.

In German and French political discourse about Muslim immigrants, you sometimes hear the phrase "parallel society" used to express fears that the Muslims are failing to integrate. What the Sarrazin episode makes clear, however, and also the ongoing saga of the Roma in France which pits most of the political and media establishment, even senior figures within his own party, as well as the church and the EU, against Sarkozy's policy of expulsion, is that it is not just Muslims who are living in a parallel society, but politicians. There is an extraordinary gulf between ordinary people, who overwhelmingly back Sarrazin and the French policy of expulsion, and the utopian elite who dominate politics and political debate with their outmoded and naive sixties idealism.

Of course thoughtful observers will have known this for some time. But the Sarrazin episode makes it clear to everyone. It dramatises the chasm between the people and the elite.

The Bundesbank has now set in motion the process that will almost certainly lead to Sarrazin losing his job there. This is actually a good thing, however, for several reasons. First, it will be a long drawn-out process. Because there are stringent measures in place to safeguard the independence of the Bundesbank, the German President has to sanction his removal. He has sought the opinion of the German Chancellor (Merkel) to give himself political cover. In fact, both will certainly give their consent and have already (shamefully) explicitly or implicitly called for the Bundesbank to get rid of Sarrazin. Sarrazin may have many avenues of appeal, however, which can draw the whole process out even further, maximising the drama and the public sympathy that will gather around him as a martyr figure.

Second, after working as a top banker, and with what are expected to be almost unprecedented sales of his book, it is doubtful that he is going to be hurting for cash any time soon.

Third, his departure from the Bundesbank leaves him unemployed. He will have time on his hands, time to think about what he wants to do with his life. There is talk of a new right-wing political party being formed in Germany, possibly with Sarrazin at the helm. This hopeful possibility might have been forestalled had the Bundesbank kept Sarrazin on. He might have been tempted to keep his mouth shut and his head down for a bit. But now he's outside the tent with nothing to lose.

Even though they are joining in the hysteria against Sarrazin, most German news publications are also actually taking the time to examine the truth of his claims. When they do that, they invariably find that the claims are valid, because, as Sarrazin himself says, all he has done is carefully analyse publicly available sources of information. Therefore the process of public scrutiny can only increase support for Sarrazin further.

All in all, what has happened has been truly wonderful. It is like a dam of public discontent and decades of suppressed misgivings have suddenly burst forth, inundating the old political world. It remains to be seen what will emerge once the waters subside, but at this stage we can only hope that the other countries of Europe will soon benefit from Sarrazins of their own.

Those concerned about the islamification of Europe should know that there have been extraordinary developments in Germany within the last week or so. Thilo Sarrazin, a German banker who sits on the board of the German central bank, has provoked uproar in the country by drawing attention to the negative effect immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, is having on the country.

Sarrazin has claimed that Muslim migrants have failed to integrate; that they are lowering German educational standards by their poor performance at school; that they have made a net negative economic contribution to the country because of their high welfare dependency; and that their high birth-rate, combined with the low birth-rate of indigenous Germans, means they are gradually taking over the country.

Sarrazin's book has not been published yet, but extracts from it have appeared in the Bild newspaper. (Available here if you can read German). There is overwhelming public support for Sarazin's point of view. Bild ran a poll that showed 89% agreed with Sarrazin. Despite this, of course, the bien-pensant elite of the politics and media worlds have denounced Sarrazin in the most strident terms.

The prosecutor's office is carrying out an investigation to see whether anything he has said or written constitutes a crime. Politicians from all across the political spectrum, including Germany's allegedly conservative CDU, have vilified him and called for the Bundesbank to dismiss him from his position. This may well indeed happen; the Bundesbank is currently reviewing the situation.

The episode is an extraordinary illustration of the McCarthyite persecution of anyone who dares to dissent from the mad utopian ideology that our elites have developed into a kind of secular religion in recent decades. Sarrazin has made factual claims. Those factual claims are either true or false and their truth or falsehood can be examined. When they are examined carefully, they are found to be true. But this doesn't matter to the elite. They have conjured up an atmosphere of witch-hunting hysteria.

Regardless of what happens to Sarrazin's career, though, he has broken the taboo and opened up a debate. Since the facts are on his side, that can only be a good thing. There is speculation that he may start a political party and pundits believe it could instantly get around 20% in the polls.

It's not clear whether he wants to do this, though. Sarrazin, although perceived by some as a kind of German Geert Wilders, in fact distanced himself from Wilders, whom he called a "right-wing populist". Somewhat bizarrely, Sarrazin is a member of the German SPD (Germany's main left-wing party) although there are now steps underway that may result in him being expelled from the party.

This shocking video shows Muslim men taking over whole streets and districts of Paris for public prayer sessions, completely without any authorisation. These actions are illegal but the police do absolutely nothing to stop them. The people who live in those districts are unlawfully prevented from going about their business while these prayer sessions take place.

They appear to be intended as a public demonstration of Muslim power, a deliberate taunting of the kaffars and dhimmis who are allowing these savages to take over our continent.

Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi has called for Europe to convert to Islam, saying it is "the last religion", and predicting that the conversion process will begin once Turkey joins the European Union.

Speaking before an invited audience of 500 female models, Gaddafi said that "Islam should become the religion of all of Europe...Islam is the last religion and if we are to have a single faith then it has to be in Mohammed".

In other remarks made during his visit to Italy, he demanded €5 billion in "protection money" each year for keeping the African hordes out of Europe. If he didn't get it, he said, Europe might "turn black" and "become another Africa".

"Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European and even black as there are millions who want to come in," he said.

"We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions".

Channel 4 has played a key role in promoting the careers of Muslim activists, including Muslim extremists. Channel 4 practises positive discrimination in favour of "minority" candidates. This practice was recently explored at a parliamentary committee hearing; some of the exchanges are reported here.

Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan is one of the extremist Muslims who have successfully infiltrated the media establishment. After carving out a career as a politics and culture editor at Channel 4, he infiltrated the New Statesman and acquired a senior editorial position there; he writes regularly for the Guardian.

In his public discourse, Hasan is careful to appear "moderate". One time, though, the mask slipped. Unfortunately for him, he was being filmed when it did. This article at Harry's Place exposes Hasan for the Muslim extremist that he is. In the film, Mehdi Hasan describes atheists as "cattle" and people "of no intelligence".

“The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

One series he commissioned, Christianity: A History, "was criticised by Church figures for trivialising the religion." Another, "The Secrets of the 12 Disciples, cast doubt on the validity of the Pope."

He did, however, commission "a week of special programmes on Islam including a feature-length documentary on the Qu'ran, and a series of interviews with Muslims around the world talking about their beliefs."

Even the risible dhimmi George Pitcher assessed Christianity: A History as "a showcase of dumbed-down religion, a History of Platitudes. We had Howard Jacobson with the scoop that Jesus was a Jew. Michael Portillo reading off an autocue that it was a shame Constantine adopted Christianity. Ann Widdecombe saying it was a pity the Reformation was bloody. And, God help us, Cherie Blair assessing contemporary Christianity. Some see a pattern here, a mild ridicule of Christianity, but the overall theme seems banal."

Ahmed then advanced his career by becoming head of religious programming at the BBC. His appointment provoked a flood of complaints; of course critics of the appointment were dismissed as racists and islamophobes but their reservations were later shown to be justified.

Ahmed soon accused the Church of England of "living in the past" and proclaimed that "all religions should be treated equally". So Christianity, a faith practised by about 70% of the British people should be treated equally with Islam, a faith practised by 2-3% of the population of Britain?

The BBC later ran a gushingly favourable documentary about the East London Mosque, which had already been exposed as a front for the supremacist IFE. The documentary contained not a word about the critiques of the mosque that had been aired and substantiated.

In part of Germany the bright multicultural future our elite envisage for us has already arrived. A documentary called "Kampf im Klassenzimmer" (Battle in the Classroom) was recently broadcast on German television telling the story of a school in Essen, in Western Germany. 70% of the pupils at the school are of foreign extraction, mostly Muslim, primarily Turks and Lebanese. The German schoolchildren are constantly terrorised by the Muslims; ostracised, insulted and regularly subjected to physical violence. The German and Muslim children hang out in separate groups. Friendships between them are rare.

Physical education at the school is now very limited, because Muslim parents demand that their daughters not participate or not show their bodies in public. The school has settled on badminton as the best PE activity because it can be played fully clothed.

This is what the utopian idealism of our political elite has led to: European children being terrorised in their own schools, growing up in an atmosphere of relentless hostility from a contemptuous alien group.

The media is involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth about Muslim aggression.

Examples below:

A few years ago there was widespread rioting in France. In fact this is a fairly common occurrence in France now. Whenever these events are being reported, the mass media conspire to suppress the truth about what is going on. The people rioting are Muslims. Their rioting is a form of Muslim aggression against non-Muslims. Invariably, however, the rioters are merely described as "youths".

Here’s what’s happening in France: Villiers-le-Bel is one of France’s "quartier sensible" or touchy neighborhoods. These are French slums populated by North African Muslims who’ve been both unwilling and unable to assimilate into larger French culture, but extremely willing and able to become part of the larger French welfare system. These are Muslims who didn’t emigrate to France for a better life. They went for the same life, with better benefits. So, over 80 police have been injured, some critically, by Muslim rioters for whom the French police are nothing more than armed infidels. I’m not saying the rioters are jihadists, but it requires a commitment to ignorance not to sniff out the familiar in these words of one rioter: “This is war. There is no mercy. We want at least two policemen dead.”

Some people believe that the mere passage of time will help solve the Muslim problem; Muslims and non-Muslims will grow more used to one another, they argue, and then they will all live happily ever after. But this picture is frighteningly false.

Studies of Muslim opinion in Britain show that Muslim attitudes are not converging towards British norms but are, in fact, moving further and further away from the British norm. In many ways this is the most frightening lesson to be learned from Britain's experience of Muslim immigration. The third generation Muslims now growing up in Britain are more extreme in their attitudes than the first generation Muslims were. Indeed, in many respects, they are more extreme in their attitudes than the Muslims living in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East. This is a truly extraordinary and almost incredible phenomenon. No assimilation is taking place. Instead, a process of disassimilation is underway.

There is some unique incompatibility between European culture and Islamic culture. When exposed to a European host, Muslim culture retreats into its most retrograde characteristics, becoming almost a caricature of itself. Bangladeshis from Bangladesh come to Britain and are shocked by how backwards and primitive the Bangladeshis here are. Turks from Turkey are similarly shocked by the lifestyles of Turks living in Germany.

Another factor is the behavioural pattern observed across history and across the world in the present day: the more Muslims there are concentrated in a specific area, the more aggressively they behave.

In parts of the world where there are very few Muslims, for example Scotland where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, people tend to wonder what all the fuss is about. "These Muslims seem alright," they say. "It must just be evil racists or fascists kicking up all this fuss elsewhere." Or they delude themselves into think that their unique virtue inspires reciprocal virtue in the Muslims; or that, somehow, they got the "good Muslims". But this is a delusion. Up until they are about 1-2% of the population, Muslims often act in a perfectly normal way. From that point on, there is an ever upwards trajectory of violence and confrontation until the Muslims have extirpated everyone else.

Dr. Peter Hammond, in his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: the Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, analysed this Muslim behavioural pattern:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%Philippines—5%Sweden—Muslim 5%The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8France—Muslim 8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%Albania—Muslim 70%Sudan—Muslim 70%Qatar—Muslim 77.5%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:Bangladesh—Muslim 83%Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%Syria—Muslim 90%Tajikistan—Muslim 90%Egypt—Muslim 90%Jordan—Muslim 92%United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%Pakistan—Muslim 97%Iraq—Muslim 97%Iran—Muslim 98%Gaza—Muslim 98.7%Morocco—Muslim 98.7%Palestine—Muslim 99%Turkey—Muslim 99.8%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’—the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:Afghanistan—Muslim 100%Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%Somalia—Muslim 100%Yemen—Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

Muslims have grasped the fact that government holds the power to reorder society. They have infiltrated the institutions of government the better to advance their agenda.

Muslim Infiltration of the Crown Prosecution Service

In February 2010, the Sunday Times published a fascinating article by a barrister who used the name Sameena Patel, although this was not her real name. She was a brown-skinned woman of Indian extraction. In the article, she warned of the dangers of positive discrimination in the appointment of judges, arguing that similar policies and practices had already had disastrous effects in the recruitment of more junior legal personnel. She claimed that an atmosphere of political correctness had led law firms to recruit disproportionately from ethnic minorities; that these "positive discrimination" recruits often produced sub-standard work which their colleagues quietly accepted for fear of being accused of racism if they drew attention to it.

She particularly accused the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) of supporting a stifling atmosphere of political correctness, churning out "propaganda material" she described as "hilarious."

In London, at least, the organisation seems to be stuffed with people from ethnic minorities.

It is worrying when you ring someone up about a case, often a serious one, and you have trouble understanding what they are saying. Or you get skeleton arguments or documents drafted that simply make no sense and are written in pidgin English.

It is, in part, the Muslim infiltration of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that explains the extreme favouritism shown to Muslims in decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute a case. For example, it explains the decision to prosecute Ben and Sharon Vogelzang for a religiously-aggravated public order offence when they had a discussion with a Muslim guest in their hotel in which they referred to Mohammed as a warlord. It also explains the decision not to prosecute the UAF member who was caught on camera throwing a dart at BNP leader Nick Griffin (the dart missed Griffin but struck and injured someone else). When the BNP inquired about why no prosecution had been made, they received a letter from one "S. Kadir" stating that the matter had inadvertently not been processed within the required time limit so now had to be dropped.

On 5 July 2010 the Herald carried this report about infiltration of the Scottish National Party (SNP) by Muslims. For reasons of political correctness, it did not describe the infiltrators as Muslims, saying only that they had "Asian surnames".

"The SNP has denied allegations of vote-rigging after its executive committee was forced to take action to prevent new members standing for election in the west of Scotland, following a sudden upsurge in membership in the region.

It emerged yesterday that the SNP’s national executive committee had become suspicious after hundreds of new members - most of whom are understood to have Asian surnames - suddenly joined the party in the west of Scotland just in time to vote for their preferred candidate in this summer’s selection process for the Holyrood race."

It emerged that the Muslim at the centre of these allegations was Jahangir "Kalashnikov" Hanif. This man acquired the soubriquet "the Kalashnikov councillor" when a video surfaced of him firing a Kalashnivov assault rifle on a trip to Pakistan. Following this revelation, he was briefly suspended from the party but was later reinstated.

On 8 August 2010 the Herald reported that the SNP's National Executive Committee had cleared Hanif of "claims he had falsely signed up new members to the Nationalists".

An email from an SNP activist to Hanif was quoted:

“If the media get hold of the fact we are falsly (sic) signing people up they would have a field day, ... Can you tell me if any of the others you have sent are real members or just ones you have made up?”

Hanif was cleared of "falsely signing up new members". All this means is that the people he signed up did actually exist. It says nothing about whether or not he was deliberately encouraging fellow Muslims to join the SNP in large numbers in order to affect the outcome of future elections or selections. In other words he was not cleared of practising entryism because entryism is not considered "wrong-doing" by the SNP.

Pro-Muslim Bias in SNP Leadership

Scotland's first Muslim MSP was Bashir Ahmad of the SNP. According to the Herald, Alex Salmond once said “Bashir looked upon Nicola as a daughter." Nicola is Nicola Sturgeon, current Deputy First Minister in the SNP government.

The Herald reported that one of Alex Salmond's parliamentary aides was Humza Yousaf. The SNP leadership was apparently keen for Humza Yousaf to be accepted as a political candidate. But his nomination was rejected by the local party. The Herald described this as a "blow to both Salmond and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who are promoting him as a successor to Holyrood’s first Asian MSP, Bashir Ahmad. It is understood Sturgeon accompanied Yousaf around Pollok. The First Minister also provided Yousaf with a glowing endorsement for his website."

Lunchgate

In early 2010 a political scandal broke in Scotland concerning the SNP First Minister and Deputy First Minister auctioning off lunches in the Scottish parliament. The scandal quickly became known as "Lunchgate" and was reported in the Herald based on a videotape of the proceedings it had acquired.

The Lunchgate auction took place in the Kabana "We cater 100 percent halal poultry" restaurant in Glasgow. The audience there consisted almost entirely of Glasgow Muslims and one of its purposes was to raise funds for the election campaign of one Osama Saeed, chairperson of the Scottish Islamic Foundation. Both Salmond and Sturgeon were present, as was Osama Saeed and Humza Yousaf, who acted as the auctioneer.

The Herald report here goes into seedy detail about what exactly was being offered, how much was paid and what pitches were delivered. One Khalid Javid, Khalid Javid, a 51-year-old accountant, bought a lunch with Sturgeon for £2000. Amin Hussain, a 53-year-old businessman, bought a lunch with Salmond for £9000. Both Salmond and Sturgeon bizarrely signed a Pakistan cricket top and auctioned that.

Muslims Receiving Vast and Disproportionate Amounts of Government Money under SNP Administration

Given their share of the Scottish population, which is less than 1%, Muslims are receiving an astonishingly high proportion (around 60%) of Scottish government equality grants, the Christian Institute reports.

"Islamic organisations receive more public funding for ‘equality’ than all other religious groups put together in Scotland, it has been revealed.

Almost 60 per cent of all grants given out by the Equality Unit has gone to just five Muslim groups.

The groups were awarded £1.5 million of public money, dwarfing the £137,500 given to Christian charities and the £110,000 given to Jewish organisations."

SNP's Position on Burka Ban

When Conservative MP Philip Hollobone first proposed a law to ban the wearing of burkas in Britain, Alex Salmond was quick to denounce the plan, even though this area of legislation was reserved to Westminster and nothing to do with a devolved government.

Polls have shown that around two-thirds of the British public would support a burka ban. I am not aware of any similar polls for Scotland; however, we have no reason to believe the levels of support there would be any different. The smart thing for a Scottish politician to do, then, would be to shut up about it. Since it is a reserved matter for Westminster, there is no point taking a position on it that could only alienate some, perhaps a majority, of the public. But Salmond chose to do so anyway. Telling.

The Abdul Rauf Affair

In February 2010 it emerged that Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's Deputy First Minister, had written a letter of support on behalf of Abdul Rauf, a Muslim on trial for benefits fraud. Rauf had defrauded the taxpayer of £80,000 by claiming benefits under false pretenses. He had previously been convicted, and served jail time, for a similar offence: stealing benefit cheques and re-assigning them to himself when he ran a post office.

Sturgeon, whose job involves appointing all sheriffs and judges in Scotland, asked the judge to consider a non-custodial sentence for Rauf. The text of the letter is reproduced below:

I refer to my above named constituent and the case brought against him for benefit fraud.

I have been aware of Mr Rauf's case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pensions and officers from Strathclyde Police.

It was clear at that time that he recognised the serious nature of the matter he was facing and that it would be necessary to pay back the money he had obtained unlawfully.

For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health, mainly associated with his heart. He has a family including young children aged under 10 and he is heavily involved in his community.

All of these aspects of his life have been significantly impacted upon by the mistakes he has made.

Mr Rauf has accepted his wrong doing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effect on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community.

He has advised me that he has already paid £27,000 of the outstanding balance owed to the Department of Work and Pensions and has said since he first sought my advice that he will sell his property in Edinburgh to settle the remaining balance.

He and his wife are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the effect this will have on Mr Rauf's health and the impact on family life.

I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence."

In reporting the Abdul Rauf affair, The Scotsman speculated that a desire to "curry favour" with the Glasgow Muslim community may have explained Sturgeon's decision to intervene:

"The SNP has good reason to want to win support among Muslims. First, they may hold the key to two constituencies, Govan in the Scottish Parliament and the overlapping Glasgow Central seat for Westminster. Second, the Nationalists can point to Asian support to underline their self-declared "civic" rather than "ethnic" nationalism, that they are the party of all Scots, regardless of their colour. Third – and some cynics say most importantly – Asian businessmen are generous benefactors in an age when political parties are starved of funds."

When the news of her intervention leaked, and the scandal broke, it was suggested that Rauf had been introduced to Sturgeon by Bashir Ahmad, Scotland's first Muslim MSP, who is said to have looked on Sturgeon "as a daughter".

Osama Saeed and the Scottish Islamic Foundation

Osama Saeed was a spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the world-spanning Muslim extremist organisation whose ideas have inspired terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Saeed later worked as a researcher for Alex Salmond and appears to have formed an especially close personal relationship with him.

“Of all the people in his office, I was the only one to escape his wrath,” laughs Saeed, when he recalls Salmond’s notorious temper. “I never got the full hairdryer treatment.”

Even before the Scottish-Islamic Foundation was formally founded, the Centre for Social Cohesion warned of its leaders links to extremists and made it clear that it was trying to follow the well-worn path of Islamic extremists in England, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, who present themselves as moderates by denouncing terrorism then get large amounts of government cash to advance a Muslim agenda that identical to that of the terrorists, differing only in that it is pursued by non-violent means.

In August 2010 the anti-extremist think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, sent a report to the Home Office detailing Muslim organisations in Britain which it considered to be linked to extremists. The Scottish-Islamic Foundation was one of these.

The Quilliam Foundation has a detailed assessment of Osama Saeed on its website, extracts from which are quoted below.

In 2004, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a so-called Muslim scholar popular throughout the Middle East thanks to his regular appearances on Al Jazeera, visited Britain. The visit provoked controversy because of al-Qaradawis extreme views on a number of subjects. Osama Saeed publicly defended him, however:

"Saeed has described Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, as an “eminent scholar” and “a man who has worked hard to reconcile Islam with modern democracy”, and written that Ken Livingstone’s controversial endorsement of Qaradawi “will be proved on the money in the fullness of time”. Saeed has criticised the BBC for accurately describing Qaradawi’s violent views, writing that its presenter Nicky Campbell “has also spoken about Shaikh Qaradawi being a man who promotes the beating of women and killing of gays. This is truly unacceptable from the BBC”. As well as justifying wife-beating, the murder of homosexuals and suicide bomb attacks on civilians, Qaradawi is also a notorious anti-Semite."

In an article called "Caliphate should be our vision", Saeed also supported the creation of a global Muslim Caliphate:

"The re-creation of the Caliphate is promoted by a range of extreme Islamist groups which include Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda."

Saeed also called for the creation of separatist Muslim schools with a distinct Islamic ethos.

He called on Muslims not to cooperate with the police.

Osama Saeed Gives Platform to Extremists

"Through the Scottish Islamic Foundation, Osama Saeed has given a platform to some of the most prominent Islamists in the UK. For example, the SIF has arranged on two occasions for Kemal Helbawy, the founder of the Muslim Association of Britain, and Alamin Belhaj, the head of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, to lecture young Scottish Muslims on Islam. On other occasions, Saeed’s SIF has given platforms to yet more foreign Islamists, including two senior members of the Brotherhood-linked Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the former head of the US branch of the Saudi-Wahhabi group the World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY)."

Saeed Arranges Meetings Between Scottish Government and Muslim Extremists

"Saeed has also used his contacts with the Scottish National Party to arrange meetings between other British Islamist extremists and senior members of the Scottish government. For example, in January 2008, Saeed arranged for Mohammed Sawalha, Anas al-Tikriti and Ismail Patel, three members of a Muslim Brotherhood front- group called the British Muslim Initiative, to meet Linda Fabiani, the Scottish minister for Europe, to discuss Saeed’s plan to hold an Islamic festival in Scotland. Shortly afterwards, the Scottish government gave the SIF £215,000 towards funding the event."

Saeed Warns Non-Muslims Not to Create Pictures of Mohammed

“Much has been made of the right to ridicule and cause offence, even if I disagree there is such a right. I don't remember it being in any UN charter or the Geneva Convention … The right to offend doesn't work on the playground and it shouldn't work on the international arena either. Even if there is a right to offend, surely there is also a right to be offended? And to complain and even boycott as a result. But the cartoons have nothing to do with ridiculing. You just don't do pictures of the Prophet, period. It's a cultural thing, accept it and respect it.”

The Scottish Islamic Foundation

In 2008, Osama Saeed was involved in the foundation of the Scottish Islamic Foundation. Even before its launch, the Centre for Social Cohesion warned that it could potentially serve as a platform for Muslim extremism.

"On Thursday 26 June 2008, a new Muslim group called the Scottish Islamic Foundation will be launched in Edinburgh in the presence of Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister. The leading members of the group, together with many of those who lead its events are closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist movement with regional branches which aims to re-create the global Caliphate. The Brotherhood's motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

The Scottish Islamic Foundation later hosted an event attended by Kemal Helbawy.

"Helbawy was formerly the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's main spokesman in Europe and co-founded the MAB. During his career, he has frequently denounced the Jews and non-Muslims. For example, in 1992 he told a conference in the US: "Do not take Jews and Christians as allies. For they are allies to each other. Oh Brothers, the Palestinian cause is not of conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict of human ideology and not over peace. Rather, it is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood. Between two conducts - one satanic, headed by Jews and their co-conspirators - and the other is religious, carried by Hamas, and the Islamic movement in particular, and the Islamic people in general who are behind it."

"Significantly, the SIF's event was "organised in partnership" with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, the Muslim Association of Britain and the UK Islamic Mission - all of which are prominent Islamist organisations founded by followers and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, the South-Asian equivalent of the Brotherhood."

Scottish Islamic Foundation Youth Work

On its web page, the Scottish Islamic Foundation invites Muslim youth groups to apply to it for development grants. The SIF is acting as a conduit for Scottish government money to Muslim youth groups in Scotland. This is deeply disturbing as the separatist Muslim ethos of the SIF is clear. Indeed, the Saeed family has a track record of cultivating exactly this kind of Muslim separatism.

The Scout Association "normally requires members to pledge an oath to “God and the Queen” before joining a group, but children at the 8th Blackford are allowed to pledge allegiance to “God and country”.

They will say Muslim prayers instead of Christian ones, and children in their Beaver colony, for those aged six to eight, may colour in pictures of mosques instead of secular buildings. The Beaver and Cub groups are mixed sex, whereas the Scout troops - for those aged 10 to 14 - are single sex for religious reasons."

The Saeed clan has also been active in calling for separatist Muslim schools in Scotland. In 2008 SNP leader Alex Salmond gave his personal backing to a proposal to set up Scotland's first state-funded Muslim school.

Islamfest

In January 2008 Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP and Scotland's First Minister, had a meeting with Osama Saeed and former Hamas terror commander Mohammed Sawalha. The topic of discussion was a proposed Islamic cultural festival in Scotland, called Islamfest. Following the meeting, the Scottish government agreed to grant £215,000 to fund the festival.

Islamfest had been modelled on the IslamExpo event in London. British politicians, including Muslims, had shunned IslamExpo when it emerged that it had links to Hamas.

Islamfest never materialised. The Scottish Islamic Foundation repaid £128,000 of the money it had been given. The rest allegedly went on expenses. Osama Saeed stepped down from his leadership of the SIF "as auditors uncovered major gaps in the body's accounts."

The Release of Convicted Lockerbie Bomber Megrahi

With so many signs of pro-Muslim bias in the SNP, it's worth asking whether the decision to release Megrahi, who was convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, could have been influenced by this. Osama Saeed, the SNP's Muslim extremist candidate and close personal friend of Alex Salmond, supported Megrahi's release on his blog, arguing:

"If he had died in Scotland from cancer it would have done irreparable damage to our reputation not just in Libya and the Muslim world, but beyond."

Muslim Penetration of the SNP

Since forming a government in 2007, the SNP has been rocked by four major scandals: the Abdul Rauf affair, Lunchgate, the release of the Lockerbie bomber and the Scottish Islamic Foundation affair. All four scandals have involved Muslims.

Perhaps honest, patriotic Scottish National Party members should be asking what it is that has happened to their party that has led to this massive infiltration by Muslims and the corruption that inevitably comes with it.

UPDATE: Following the elections on 5 May 2011, Humza Yousaf was appointed (not elected) a Member of the Scottish Parliament. He is the cousin of the extremist Osama Saeed and served as the public affairs director of the Scottish Islamic Foundation. See this page for more information.

Cranmer has some good material on the Muslim infiltration of the Conservative Party in the form of the Conservative Muslim Forum here.

Muslim infiltration of the Labour Party

In March 2010 Channel 4 broadcast a Dispatches documentary ("Britain's Islamic Republic") about Muslim infiltration of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets. It was based on the reporting of Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan.

Muslim infiltration of the Scottish National Party (SNP)

On 5 July 2010 the Herald carried this report about infiltration of the Scottish National Party (SNP) by Muslims. For reasons of political correctness, it did not describe the infiltrators as Muslims, saying only that they had "Asian surnames".

"The SNP has denied allegations of vote-rigging after its executive committee was forced to take action to prevent new members standing for election in the west of Scotland, following a sudden upsurge in membership in the region.

It emerged yesterday that the SNP’s national executive committee had become suspicious after hundreds of new members - most of whom are understood to have Asian surnames - suddenly joined the party in the west of Scotland just in time to vote for their preferred candidate in this summer’s selection process for the Holyrood race."

Muslim infiltration of the Scottish Conservative Party

On 16 August 2010 the Herald carried this report about Muslim infiltration of the Scottish Conservative Party in a bid to influence the candidate selection process.

"Senior Conservatives in Glasgow have raised the alarm over an alleged plot to influence the selection of party candidates.

Seven constituency chairmen and women have written to the party’s central office in Edinburgh about a mass sign-up of members linked to the newly-created One Nation Forum.

Mark McInnes, the director of the party in Scotland, is to meet the seven today to listen to their fears.

The forum was formed last year by businessman Majid Hussain in an attempt to improve links between ethnic minorities and the Scottish Tories, as well as to raise funds for the party.

However, senior Glasgow Conservatives are concerned that the forum may have signed up hundreds of members ahead of the candidate selections for next year’s Holyrood poll."

Here are links to some of the key facts relating to Muslim demographics in Britain:

This article in the Times, based on information from the Office of National Statistics, establishes that the Muslim demographic in Britain is growing ten times faster than the rest of the population, increasing by almost 600,000 in the years 2004-2008 alone :

"According to the US's Migration Policy Institute, residents of Muslim faith will account for more than 20 per cent of the EU population by 2050 but already do so in a number of cities. Whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell, an American journalist, and even sooner in Leicester. Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century. Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050, says Mr Caldwell."

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life estimated that the Muslim population of Britain had grown from 1,647,000 in 2001 to 2,869,000 in 2010, an increase of 74%.

A separate discussion of Muslim demographics here broadly validates these figures, estimating annual growth in the Muslim population of Britain at an average of 6.5% for the last three decades. This means that the Muslim demographic is doubling approximately ever 12 years.

"For example, compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively"

The Equalities Commission report "How Fair is Britain?", published in early 2011, contained some interesting observations about Muslim unemployment levels in the UK.

In the UK only 47% of Muslim men and 24% of Muslim women are employed.

The Wikileaks cables also contained some interesting revelations about the levels of "disability" among Muslims in Britain.

Muslims were also found to have the highest disability rates - with 24 per cent of men and 21 per cent of women claiming a disability - while the cable also cited statistics claiming Muslims were also the most likely group to be unavailable for work or not actively seeking employment due to illness, their studies or family commitments.

The original source for this information seem to have been this page on the Office of National Statistics website. It notes that "Muslim males and females in Great Britain had the highest rates of reported ill health in 2001."

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim-friendly Guardian, although at the forefront of the Wikileaks revelations, did not see fit to print this one, although the Daily Mail did.